28 Apr 06 10:53, Vladimir Donskoy wrote to Roy Witt:

 VD> Hi Roy!

 VD> Thursday April 27 2006, Roy Witt wrote to Vladimir Donskoy:

 VD>>>>> For example: now is election on NC 2:5020 - one of
the largest
 VD>>>>> network on world, near 600 nodes. Now we have 106 votes after
 VD>>>>> first week (theoretical full will near 150 votes - big
 VD>>>>> percent)... Or other example: I make election REC
2:50 by NCs and
 VD>>>>> NECs on 2003 - total 172 sysops, and I has only 43 vote! So -
 VD>>>>> even living working controlling sysops are passive
on elections
 VD>>>>> (and referendum too). Or example by another region - I make
 VD>>>>> election (as vote-checker) on RC 2:45 on 2004 year,
and from 360
 VD>>>>> nodes I has 49 votes.

 RW>>>> But the question remains; did those votes count as they
should, or
 RW>>>> was the election stalled because there wasn't a majority turnout
 RW>>>> of voters?

 VD>>> Read Policy 8.6 - it is not require quorum! So - all this elections
 VD>>> are realized.

 RW>> 8.6 refers to voting on policy changes, not elections.

 VD> No, 8.7.2 have link to 8.6 - so quorum is not exist for election ZC.

Nope. That section applies is in addition to 8.6 and is still addressing
policy changes. The fact is, there is nothing in policy that applies to
elections. Basically because there weren't supposed to be any elections
held by sysops.

 RW>> An election as you've described above would be administered under a
 RW>> region policy. If R50? doesn't have a region policy, there are
 RW>> plenty of examples in Z1 that can be used as a reference to make
 RW>> your region policy. Z1's R12, R13 and R18 all have a very good
 RW>> example and select their RC in this way by votes from every sysop in
 RW>> the region who wishes to participate in that election.  I have a
 RW>> copy of each just for the asking.

 VD> All elections in our region have make to this principle - all sysops
 VD> voting. We have not "write" Regional Policy, but we have
it "in the
 VD> head".

Better to have it in writing so that there's no mis-understandings later.

 RW>>>> In the real world, the votes would be tallied and the election
 RW>>>> finished.

 RW>>>> In Doosche's world, the election would be a failure because there
 RW>>>> wasn't a majority turnout.

 VD>>> Policy require majority votes for start elections and sample count
 VD>>> votes on election process result.

 RW>> Policy says that only RCs can vote for the ZC, but in a democratic
 RW>> Fidonet, that isn't how it works anymore. In Z1, every sysop is
 RW>> elegible to vote. However, their RC has the vote per policy, but the
 RW>> RC's vote is weighted by the majority of their sysops vote.

 VD> What do you think that FIDO is democratic :-) ? I think that FIDO is
 VD> "constitution monarchy" (by Policy as Constitution) :-( .

I don't believe in Fidonet Policy...I don't bother to comply with that
which I think no longer applies. That's democracy.

 VD>>>  "Weight" of the vote isn't count by Policy :-( .

 RW>> LOL! The point of the matter is, that's the opposite of what your ZC
 RW>> claimed. He made an attempt to continue as IC after another was
 RW>> elected by the ZCC, with the idea that the most populated zone has a
 RW>> weighted vote and 86% of that zone says he's still the IC.
 RW>> Completely against what policy says.

 VD> I know it. But in the Zone he not use this principle (this is
 VD> disadvantage to him). Dual standarts :-) !

Yeup...(yeup = yes) "What's good for the goose isn't good enough for the
gander."

 VD>>>  Therefore a logical conclusion - it means existence of regions
 VD>>> (and networks) about the identical size that we and achieve in a
 VD>>> new own zone.

 RW>> But the idea here is to use his own "Weighted"
thinking against him
 RW>> and elect a ZC by a majority vote of *all* sysops in the largest
 RW>> region of Z2.

 VD> For it need as minimum starting of election, that he is not want.

But elsewhere in these echoes (FN_SYSOP, FIODNEWS), he's stated that he's
asked the sysops of Z2 if they would like to hold a ZC election and there
is no reply in the positive.

Another double standard?


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000